The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment on a petition filed by Sandwich Isles
Communications, Inc. (SIC) seeking waiver of several high-cost universal service rules, including the study area boundary freeze codified in part 36 of the Commission’s rules.1 First, SIC seeks a waiver of the definition of “study area” contained in part 36 of the Commission’s rules, and requests that its current study area be modified to include all of the Hawaiian Home Lands (HHL).2 Second, SIC seeks a waiver of section 69.3(e)(11) of the Commission’s rules, relating to its participation in the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) common line tariff.3 Third, SIC requests a waiver of section 69.605(c) to theextent necessary for SIC to remain an average schedule company after the acquisition of any lines and exchanges.4 Finally, SIC seeks a waiver of sections 36.611, 36.612, 54.301(b), 54.314(d), 54.903(a)(3), 69.2 and 69.3 of the Commission’s rules, which would allow it to immediately receive federal high-cost universal service support for any lines acquired from other carriers in the HHL based on projected costs, until actual data become available for the acquired lines.5

1 Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc. Petition for Waiver of the Definition of “Study Area” Contained in Part 36, Appendix-Glossary of the Commission’s Rules, CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed Nov. 29, 2012) (Petition); see also 47 C.F.R. Part 36 App. (defining “study area”). Effective November 15, 1984, the Commission froze all study area boundaries to prevent incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) from establishing separate study areas made up only of high-cost exchanges to maximize their receipt of high-cost universal service support. See MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part 67 of the Commission’s Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, CC Docket Nos. 78-72, 80-286, Decision and Order, 50 Fed. Reg. 939 (1985) (Part 67 Order). A carrier must therefore apply to the Commission for a waiver of the study area boundary freeze if it wishes to transfer or acquire additional exchanges.
2 Petition at 1; 47 C.F.R. Part 36, App.3 Petition at 1; 47 C.F.R. § 69.3(e)(11). 4 Petition at 1; 47 C.F.R. § 69.605(c).5 Petition at 1-2; 47 C.F.R. §§ 36.611, 36.612, 54.301(b), 54.314(d), 54.903(a)(3), 69.2, 69.3.SIC also requests that this waiver Petition be processed via the new streamlined study area waiver
rules adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order.6 However, we find that streamlined treatment is not appropriate in this instance. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission streamlined its rules governing study area waiver requests, creating a method similar to the Bureau’s processing of routine section 214 transfer of control applications.7 Under the revised process, if the Bureau concludes that a petition is appropriate for streamlined treatment, the petition will be deemed granted 60 days after the reply comment due date unless the Bureau issues a public notice stating otherwise.8 Most petitions for study area waiver are routine in nature and are granted as filed without modification. The Commission’s new streamlined procedures were created to specifically address such routine study area waivers.9 However, if the Bureau has concerns with any aspect of a petition for study area waiver or related waivers, it may find that such petition is inappropriate for streamlined treatment and that it should be subject to further analysis and review.10
Issues raised in the Petition, including SIC’s purported exclusive license to serve all of the HHL
and its assertions that it is now the carrier of last resort in the HHL as a result of the purported exclusive license, are also relevant to Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc.’s pending application for review of the Bureau’s partial grant of SIC’s earlier study area waiver request in 2005.11 The exclusive license matter is also at issue in SIC’s petition for a ten year waiver of section 54.302 of the Commission rules, which is currently under consideration by the Bureau.12 Granting the Petition via the streamlined process, without fully evaluating this issue, could affect these proceedings and the Commission’s ability to address this issue on the merits. For these reasons, the Bureau finds that the Petition is inappropriate for streamlined treatment, and should be subject to further analysis and review. Accordingly, the Bureau will issue an order either granting or denying the Petition after considering the record, including the record received in response to this public notice.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, interested parties may file
comments on or before the dates indicated above.13 Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).14

In addition, we request that one copy of each pleading be sent to each of the following:

(1) Abdel Eqab, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th
Street, SW, Room 5-B431, Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: Abdel-Hamid.Eqab@fcc.gov; and
(2) Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th
Street, SW, Room 5-A452, Washington, DC 20554; e-mail: Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov[7].
The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.15 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed

15 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq.
3consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
For further information, please contact Abdel Eqab, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-7400 or TTY (202) 418-0484.- FCC -
4

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading.
We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology.
The original version of the document is available as a PDF[2], Word Document[1], or as plain text[3].